Sehajpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab




   
  

  !"#"$%&&



   

  

  %  '()& )
 )*

+ # $ ! 

    "# $%

 & '(" )#&"  ***  )*,&- (.

1.

By virtue of the present petition under Section 483 BNSS, petitioner, an accused in case bearing FIR No.22 dated 12.04.2024 registered against him, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 21/25/59 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act 1985 at Police Station SSOC Amritsar, District Amritsar, has prayed for grant of bail. 2.

Relevant facts emerging from documents on record be noticed hereinbelow:- On 12.04.2024, police team headed by SI, Shivraj Singh, received a secret information that Diljaan Singh @ Jaanu s/o Dilbag Singh R/o Burj Rai Ke, P.S. Sadar Patti, Distt. Tarn Taran, and Sehajpreet Singh (petitioner) S/o Gurbinder Singh, R/o Mano Chahal Khurd, P.S. Sadar Tarn Taran, Distt. Tarn Taran, are habitual of indulging in illegal smuggling of contraband. In the recent days, the aforesaid two have procured a huge consignment of "heroin" and can be apprehended red handed along with the

contraband near Mandhuban Park, B-Block, Amritsar, in white coloured I20 car bearing No.PB-02-DC-2063. On finding the information reliable, ruqa was sent for registration of case u/s 21,25,29,61,85 of NDPS Act and raid was conducted. Police officials reached at the disclosed site and noticed an I20 car parked wherein one person was sitting on the driver seat and another one was standing outside the car. On seeing the police party, the driver of the car switched on the ignition and tried to speed away, but both the persons were apprehended. The driver of the car introduced himself as Diljaan Singh @ Jaanu whereas the person who was standing outside the car revealed his identify as Sehajpreet Singh (present petitioner). Both of them were informed about their legal rights u/s 50 the NDPS Act.

Further as per prosecution, the search of the car was conducted by DSP, from underneath the driver seat, 1 kg 'Heroin' was recovered. Both Diljaan Singh @ Jaanu and Sehajpreet Singh (present petitioner) were arrested. Proceedings u/s 52A were initiated. During the course of the investigation, it came to the notice of the police authority that one Jaideep Singh s/o Jatinder Singh was the registered owner of the I20 car. Co-accused Diljaan had borrowed the car from Jaideep, who was not aware that the vehicle would be misused.

+% ,' $

"%,,-     ,    %%

"-- 

 

'$  ,%  ,

,  !

" %,
 "#'  ( '

-   '

$     

# $ -%"

 

 , 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, the vehicle from which the contraband was allegedly recovered does not belong to him, he is not the registered owner of the said vehicle. No contraband was recovered from his conscious

.

possession. Further the falsity of the case set up by the prosecution is apparent from the fact that despite receiving secret information in advance, no efforts were made by the I.O. to involve any independent person as a witness to the case proceedings. It is further the submission of learned counsel that the mandatory provisions 

%  "   #%- ,  %', / 0+ (  1, 

'



/ %

,  % - '

   %%%

),

2 

   

-

,/ $

 1'

 



,/ %',  ,  

" 3  '   0   % ,        %

    "  -     -

%$ ' ,

",  $ -

$

 4  $ " 

%% %

 /- , 

$ /

,

 - , ,  $,$ 5  '

,



#%,  
   0 ',/  -  

'

"/ ,,- 

' 4.

Per contra, learned State counsel while referring to the status report dated 24.10.2025 filed by way of affidavit of Mr. Balbir Singh, PPS, ) /

  ,% "
 0 ,, % "#' has opposed the request for grant of bail on the ground that petitioner and co-accused Diljan Singh are habitual offenders. Based on secret information, the police team headed by the Sub-Inspector Shivraj Singh caught both the petitioner and coaccused Diljaan Singh red handed while keeping 1 Kg. 'Heroin' in vehicle in which they were travelling. Learned State counsel further contends that contraband recovered in the present case falls within the 'Commercial Quantity'. In view thereof, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are attracted

which bar the grant of bail, unless the twin conditions prescribed in the provision are satisfied. If lenient view is taken in favour of the petitioner, the likelihood of him indulging in the similar offence cannot be ruled out. Dismissal of the petition has been prayed for. 5.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

6.

Before proceeding to discuss the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein case titled as Shambu Lal Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan, SLP Criminal 16671 of 2024, decided on 23.04.2024, it was held as under:-




 

   

     



  





 



   

 



   !"#$ 



  %&'%%&

%%%(    

 



 ) *  ()  



  &

+

, ( )  

  



 

#  ( *



     



 

       

 

 

 

,   &

+

  

    

   

(- 
  

          !" !#"  %        %

 /   

,"67,

'

 ,%%

8 ,, --   

 ,

69:

;);<
  / %%  '1 $ %''

%,3 / 0 $%  & %  & %      '(!))"("67,

'

 , %%

"$,$ %

% =%>8 2# :) "% 

 /    ',/- %%

"-

, 

,,-

',,/*$  

  '(!))(+,     , %

 / /-  %%

"%%%

)$"-- ,, ,/% 4





  ,

69:

;);<
  / =
''

%,3 /> -  %%

,/ 67,

'

 0   & ,  

'(!#!' "67,

'

 , -- ,  % 4

 ,, ,

69:

;);<
  / =    , %

 /  % > 6$   

  '

" %, 
  ,, /'

$  / '& , ,//  %,  %  

,/ %',  ,  

   3    ' "     -  

    %

 /  % 



$

,  $ -(  "

"  %  %% '

%

 '

  $ "

%% 

%

 /- , 

$ /



,,/"  

 %%

,

 %

 ,8

/ 



% ,  ,
 8) /  %%  (

,, / ,,-%  ? 





    



  *  

 

 

 

   *  ( 



 

    

 

   ( 



 



 .

  





(  

     *  



   /  

/      *  (   





 

      

  

 

  ( 





 

  

   



0

    







   *         





( 









  ( 









      *     



    



   

    

  

          

  

 

 

 *  

 

   (   /   *  ! 1

  

  

     

 

( 2 #%% ,/" 

  ,,-   ' %,  %

 / % 

 %  " ,,  , /

4%% ,, ,   /   0$ - $ " %, 

$ '  ,'



%

  - ,  % 

  '

 %

  ,- , %

 ,/ 

 

$ - )*.

&&     "   @ 48  ?;

8: @  , ?;

8: